Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Shaw Indus. Grp. v. Automated Creel Sys.

Shaw Indus. Grp. v. Automated Creel Sys.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

March 23, 2016, Decided

2015-1116, 2015-1119

Opinion

 [***1318]  [*1295]   Moore, Circuit Judge.

Shaw Industries Group, Inc. appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's ("PTO") Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") final written decision in consolidated inter partes reviews ("IPR") of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,806,360. Shaw also petitions for writ of mandamus. Automated Creel Systems ("ACS") cross-appeals. We affirm-in-part, [**2]  vacate-in-part, and remand. We deny Shaw's petition for writ.

Background

ACS is the owner of the '360 patent, which relates to "creels" for supplying yarn and other stranded materials to a manufacturing process. '360 patent, col. 1, ll. 14-17. An exemplary creel supply system of the patent comprises creel magazines with a stationary frame and two movable carts. Id. at figs. 1, 12; col. 3, ll. 18-19, 59-61. The carts carry multiple levels of spools (or packages) of stranded material that can be routed using guides. Id. at col. 3, ll. 62-63. Continuous runtime can be achieved by (1) tying the material from various packages together, and (2) replenishing empty packages on one cart while packages on the opposite cart are used. Id. at col. 8, ll. 32-41; col. 9, l. 64 to col. 10, l. 16; col. 11, l. 1 to col. 12, l. 16.

Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 19, and 20 ("the non-interposing claims") involve creel magazines with two packages of stranded material  [*1296]  at each level. They allow for transfer of stranded material from one package to another across the frame. For example, claim 5 recites:

5. A creel magazine for feeding stranded material to a manufacturing process comprising:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

817 F.3d 1293 *; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5352 **; 118 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1316 ***; 2016 WL 1128083

SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC., Appellant v. AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS, INC., Cross-Appellant

Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Automated Creel Sys. v. Shaw Indus. Group, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 6641 (U.S., Oct. 31, 2016)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00132, IPR2013-00584.

Shaw Indus. Group v. Automated Creel Sys., 2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 4679 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interferences, July 24, 2014)

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

grounds, redundant, inter partes, package, Patent, argues, instituted, stranded, written decision, estoppel, interposing, decisions, unpatentability, magazine, frame, proceedings, creel, tube, writ petition, references, cartridge, mandamus

Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Appeals, Jurisdiction & Review, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Civil Procedure, Writs, Common Law Writs, Mandamus, Preclusion, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, De Novo Review